99 comments:

It demonstrates we need a federal government and a couple of political parties that look out for the American people, instead of themselves. What you see on the interview shows is Tippytoes' Permanent Democrat Majority trying to advance itself.

Arizona's new law is one of the consequences of not having a rational immigration policy. But you are right, everybody are talking about the results of not having a policy rather than what such a policy should be and why.

The only thing irrational about our immigration policy is that the federales don't want to enforce it. Why should we give a shit about how they want it changed? Is there any assurance they'll enforce the changes?

1. If Althouse PayPals me $150, I'll rewrite her recent Texas post and arrange it so that it will have a long-term impact rather than what it is now: something that isn't going to worry those involved.

2. Perhaps mesquito would be kind enough to tell us who said that and where.

Still waiting for Ann to post an update/retraction for basing her Texas Board of Education post on old, outdated documents rather than the changes made in the last few days, which was the subject of the WaPo article...

edutcher, thank you! Those girls are truly adorable. They look like a stuffed toy that I had in the 1960s.

Now I turn to an observation.

On today's edition of "Meet the Press," the roundtable discussed the decline of the political center.

Tom Friedman, noting the creation of "digital lynch mobs" on the web and the stressing the difficulty of bridging political polarization, suggested a solution to the problem.

"I have fantasized . . . What if we could just be China for one day . . . where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions." Go to 3:20.

Thanks, I've been meaning to do it, but a lot's been going on, including finding Hudson a home yesterday.

Your observation is on the money and scary. I remember when Grace Slick (there's a blast from the past) named her daughter China because it was "the most beautiful country on Earth"; of course, it was at the height of the Cultural Revolution. Things haven't changed much in 40 years, but I'm surprised so many people are coming out and saying things like this.

Maybe it's because they see The Zero as Lewis Armistead, leading his brigade with his hat atop his sword.

Why does Arizona's new law demonstrate that we really really really need comprehensive immigration reform? That's all I've been hearing all day.

Because it makes the current policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell" more unworkable.

Now it seems like there will be not be amnesty without a promise of enforcement. And there never be enforcement enacted by Congress without a change in the law. So the idea is you need to do all three simultaneously.

But comprehensive immigration reform has foundered because the first compromise agreed to is a quota on the number of new immigrants. That doesn't work. It creates waiting lists and destroys whatever else you are trying to do.

It also has foundered because people feel compelled to argue that any amnesty will be the last amnesty, and that is, of course untrue and always will be untrue.

The principle of amnesty for those who have not arrived must therefore be enacted into law.

The TBOE only finished its meetings on Friday afternoon, and have not yet prepared the final documents and released them the public. That won't happen until next week at the earliest given that they don't work weekends. However, the meetings were public themselves, and the language and amendments were given in their entirety in those meetings. There were bloggers on hand to hear and report on the changes.

Even without those documents at hand, though, Althouse is accusing the WaPo of making things up based her linking to 2 month old documents, when the changes noted by the WaPo were only made in the last few days. In short, her analysis of the WaPo is even more groundless than the WaPo article.

For a take on the changes that supports the WaPo entirely see the live blogging posts at http://tfninsider.org/ The author of that blog is liberal, and opposed to the change, but in many cases gives the exact new language of the new changes as approved by the TBOE.

gatorguy20082009 - "Still waiting for Ann to post an update/retraction for basing her Texas Board of Education post on old, outdated documents rather than the changes made in the last few days, which was the subject of the WaPo article..."

Still waiting for you to post the most recent document so we can compare.

Dick Gregory also said that in that case they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast.

This sort of thing is what Rush Limbaugh has accused liberals of, that they like dictators like Fidel Castro - not necessarily what they do, but their power, and I guess Thomas Friedman listened to Rush Limbaugh and said to himself, "You know waht, that's right, and I should not be ashamed to admit it"

BTW, the TFN has also put the board meetings up on Youtube. Here's the one about the U.N. and various organizations undermining U.S. sovereignty and its approval by the Texas Board. There's a whole lot more such videos to confirm the WaPo.

Immigration reform won't pass until the proponents admit that it amnesty and make the case for amnesty not only for those who have come already but those who are yet to come, whether the law has been successfully enforced or not enforced, and then it will pass.

Sorry, gatorguy20092008. I mistook you for someone who might have a factual basis for screeching ALTHOUSE IS A LIAR!!!!!, someone who might be able to back up their claims with impartial facts and evidence, that third parties could read for themselves.

But it turns out you're just a one of those disposable tfninsider shill accounts who have been running around the past few weeks flooding your propaganda into any forum that doesn't ban you.

I've replied with evidence that Althouse based her analysis of the WaPo on old, outdated, and irrelevant documents. That is absolutely 100% not in question. Those PDFs she linked are actually dated 3/10. They cannot be used as evidence of what happened in 5/10.

Further, I've now posted video evidence confirming at least of the WaPo account.

I've also posted a live-blogging of the debates from someone who was there, along with exact language of some of the changes.

All I've gotten in response from some of you is incoherent screeching. Is it really that hard to admit that Althouse's post was ungrounded and, at least in part, proven false?

How do supposed Constitutional scholars Althouse and Volokh not know what a Natural Born Citizen is? Born in a country of parents who are it's citizens, i.e. singular allegiance at birth. Are they scared, or just not that smart?

"Further, I've now posted video evidence confirming at least of the WaPo account."

No, you've posted an incomplete video that didn't contain the debate that led to the decision or something that outlined the text of the proposed curriculum.

"I've also posted a live-blogging of the debates from someone who was there, along with exact language of some of the changes."

Which you then discredited in the same post. Do you relly not see that?

"All I've gotten in response from some of you is incoherent screeching. Is it really that hard to admit that Althouse's post was ungrounded and, at least in part, proven false?"

No, you're getting slapped down for putting forth an unsubstantiated claim. Don't redefine "incoherent" and "screeching" like that. Is it really so hard for you to understand how to make a well-founded argument?

Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the WaPo might be right. Unfortunately, based on the reliable information publicly available, I'm going with AA until I see something substantive.

No, you've posted an incomplete video that didn't contain the debate that led to the decision or something that outlined the text of the proposed curriculum.

Actually, that seems to be the entirety of the debate on that subject. Since they were dealing with hundreds of changes, they rarely spent more than a few minutes on each one. Plus, the woman in the beginning of that video reads the exact text of the change.

Can't you even admit that Althouse's post was using documents from two months ago, and that documents from two months ago are not useful in evaluating changes made two days ago? Please explain how events two months ago can be used by Althouse to disprove events that happened two days ago.

The American people want fences and some enforcement before anything else. Some on the Left wants to do away with borders. Some on the Right want cheap labor. Nobody wants to piss off the Mexicans already here.

You had a few errors and omissions in your earlier comment, gatorguy20092008:

I've asserted without evidence that Althouse based her analysis of the WaPo on old, outdated, and irrelevant documents. That is absolutely 100% not in question to anyone who already agreed with me beforehand. Those PDFs she linked are actually dated 3/10. They cannot be used as evidence of what happened in 5/10. There are, however, no more recent documents available, so you'll just have to trust me when I say she's lying.

Further, I've now posted some selected, edited video clips which I claim confirm[] at least of the WaPo account even though I have offered no evidence that these are the final decisions that were made, or that the content of these videos will be reflected in the final documents.

I've also posted a selectively edited live-blogging of the debates from a blogger that no one has any reason to trust and who is known for pushing a specific agenda on this topic, along with what that blogger - like Birnbaum in the WaPo - claims is the exact language of some of the changes.

All I've gotten in response from some of you is requests for actual impartial documentation supporting my claims, and a rude dismissal when the only things I could manage to provide were a few edited video clips and a liveblog from an unknown and untrustworthy source.

Is it really that hard to admit that Althouse's post was ungrounded and, at least in part, proven false, even though I have offered absolutely no evidence to demonstrate these things?

Rialby said... Mesquito - excellent point. I was screaming at the TV this morning when I heard that euphemism thrown around repeatedly.

That's the thing. I was driving my parents to the airport this morining and we were listening to that buncombe. I'm not even a big immigration restrictionist. More immigrants? Less? I don't really care.

Mom, who jumped through quite a few hoops to immigrate, was fit to be tied.

gatorguy20092008 said..."Still waiting for Ann to post an update/retraction for basing her Texas Board of Education post on old, outdated documents rather than the changes made in the last few days, which was the subject of the WaPo article... Will she do it, or allow her own misrepresentation to stand?"

If there is something more recent, you link to it and show me. The WaPo didn't link to it. I had to look. I went to the TBOE page, down to the most recent documents, so what are you referring to?

Sammy Finkelman: please read and understand the second link in my first comment.

Regarding the Texas school board video, what's the problem? When we agree to a UN treaty, we're giving up a little bit of sovereignty. And, some on the far-left want us to give up more. For a tangible example, we don't have complete control (i.e., 100% sovereignty) over some public lands inside the U.S. If (not, of course that we'd want to) we wanted to raze Yellowstone, a UN treaty would prevent us from doing that. We could, of course, break the treaty, but that would be reasserting complete sovereignty, something we don't have currently.

What's over. This will continue until he leaves office. This Tresonous Congress (and supposed constitutional scholars) has allowed a Usurper to occupy the WH. Dual citizenship at birth is the Kryptonite of this putative POTUS. Once that argument is allowed to come forth by the Toadies in the media it is over for him.

You show no real thinking, but I was wondering if I could at least get a factual admission from you.

Do you agree that the documents that Althouse linked are from March 2010, and therefore cannot possibly prove or disprove any changes made in May 2010?

It's a simple "yes or no" to a straight factual question. Once I have your answer, people can then decide whether Althouse's post claiming that those documents do amount to disproof is accurate or misleading.

You can feel free to ignore actual video that shows the TBOE reading the new language. But at least address the documents that were the entire basis for Althouse's post.

Ann,The point is, that there is nothing more recent yet posted on the Texas web page. You were using documents from two months ago to try and disprove the WaPo story.

I'm not claming that the WaPo story is 100% true yet (though the evidence favors it based on TFN and the youtube excerpt). We can't tell that until the full documents are available. What I am absolutely saying is that you can't analyze and disprove the WaPo story about changes made last week using documents from March.

Your post drew unequivocal conclusions that the reported had invented the changes and was lying.

Do you agree that the documents that Althouse linked are from March 2010, and therefore cannot possibly prove or disprove any changes made in May 2010?

Link to the May 2010 so I can compare them to the March 2010 documents.

If there are any differences, then I (and anyone else) can compare the actual source documents to both Althouse's claims and the Washington Post's claims and see who made the more accurate representation.

Link to the May 2010 so I can compare them to the March 2010 documents.

If there are any differences, then I (and anyone else) can compare the actual source documents to both Althouse's claims and the Washington Post's claims and see who made the more accurate representation.

There is no official link to the May 2010 changes, yet, genius. Maybe the story is accurate, maybe not. Right now, the limited evidence we have supports the article. Althouse's post "refuted" a story about changes made last week using two month old documents and you do not see the gaping logical problem with that. Fine. This is America. You are free to abandon rational thought if you wish.

Althouse's post provides no evidence to refute the WaPo story. None at all. Nor can you, or you would have provided it by now.

Documents from two months ago. That she used to "refute" changes made a few day ago. You see no problem with that logically or chronologically, despite being a teacher? No wonder Texas students in freshman classes are so awful.

...shows that you didn't even watch the "source" you posted. Were you intent on being taken seriously, or did you just want to generate some traffic for another blog?

It shows the reading of the initial proposal. It shows two others questioning it. It ends with the final vote on the motion. I can see no edits or breaks. Maybe you can point out the edits or breaks. Or did you watch the video at all?

mesquito said... "Oh my. I just noticed Mick wishes to launch a revolution over the definition of "natural born."

We live in truly decadent times."

We certainly do. Of course you didn't answer the question, but I know that you can't anyway, nor do you care, that is why you are a traitor. Althouse and Volokh should know better. You are just ignorant.

Holy shit gatorguy20082009, your definition of "logic" is crap and highlights why you're having such a problem here.

It is illogical to claim someone is wrong you haven't even reviewed your own evidence you've presented to make your case. AA has given a detailed takedown using the most recent information availble and you've put up a thoroughly unconvincing video after having discredited one of your other sources.

We don't even have to get into what others have already rightfully pointed out to you about the U.N. and American sovereignty.

Here's a clue for you: no one is denying that AA's info is two months old. So you can keep beating the everliving shit out of that strawman until it makes you happy. The WaPo didn't even support its own story. Do you get that? Can you wrap your mind around that for even a fraction of a second?

And you type this gem:

"There is no official link to the May 2010 changes, yet, genius. Maybe the story is accurate, maybe not."

gatorguy20092008 said: "It shows the reading of the initial proposal. It shows two others questioning it. It ends with the final vote on the motion. I can see no edits or breaks. Maybe you can point out the edits or breaks. Or did you watch the video at all?"

In response to my comment:

"your comment shows that you didn't even watch the "source"

Which was in response to gg's remark:

"Actually, that seems to be the entirety of the debate on that subject."

Which was in response to my original observation:

"No, you've posted an incomplete video that didn't contain the debate that led to the decision or something that outlined the text of the proposed curriculum.

Which was based on the video you posted where Don McLeroy clearly stated in the English language which apparently gives you a lot of trouble:

"We had testimony yesterday by people who supported this ammendment..."

So that tells me you're full of shit and haven't even bothered to check your own sources.

Finally you admit that this is the point. We don't know 100% if the WaPo story is true or false. (Though the limited evidence we have supports the story). However, Althouse has already concluded that it is 100% false despite her knowing nothing contrary to the story. The story is about changes made last week. Althouse has no contrary evidence to claim that the WaPo reporting on changes made last week is inaccurate. None.

"We had testimony yesterday by people who supported this ammendment..."

The testimony by supporters or opponents is irrelevant to whether or not the change was made to the standards. It goes to WHY the change was made, but not to the fact that the change was indeed made. Althouse claimed that no such change was made at all. The video proves that part of Anne's post to be completely wrong.

mesquito said... "Mick, if you "dunno" what should happem to traitors, why does it matter if the President, no matter who the fuck were his parents, was born in Honolulu or the Kremlin?"

If Obama was born in JFK's lap in the Oval Office he would not be eligible because his father was not a citizen (you still don't get it, or maybe you do). WHERE does it say that mere birth in the US makes one eligible to be POTUS?

gatorguy bizarrely continues: "Finally you admit that this is the point."

I was never avoiding it. Of course neither was the Professor. It's rather self evident in a post about truth and accuracy in reporting that if the journalistic enterprise is either unwilling or unable to provide proof for its claims, then their methods are questionable. When there is significant evidence to contradict their claims, their conclusions are fair game.

I'm not sure why you still aren't able to grasp these simple concepts.

"(Though the limited evidence we have supports the story)."

Well, actually Killer, no it doesn't for reasons that have been pointed out to you ad nauseum, but you choose to ignore. But keep up the faulty reasoning buddy.

"The testimony by supporters or opponents is irrelevant to whether or not the change was made to the standards."

Ok, last one before I have to go for a bit.

Nice movement of the goalposts Champ! You claimed that clip was the only debate...twice. I told you it wasn't and proved it. Which also served as pretty good evidence for showing you didn't even check your shit before you knee-jerked all over the thread.

The clip proves nothing as it provides no context or comprehensive outline of the entire change and what is included in the curriculum.

(And again, still not even getting to the point of whether or not it's accurate. OMG OMG OMG they said something about the UN that I don't like OMG OMG OMG!!!)

Nice movement of the goalposts Champ! You claimed that clip was the only debate

Nice try, asshat. The debate over these has been going on for months. I never said it showed the entire debate over those months. It showed the entire debate on that day, from the motion to insert the new text, to the new text itself, to the comments of board members, to the vote on it. Nothing suggests that it had been edited down, which is what I believed you were claiming.

I'm still waiting for even one shred of evidence that Ann or you have to refute the WaPo story about the changes made last week.

Of course, you won't do anything but dodge and weave again because you know that admitting the truth makes your previous posts look even more stupid.

If you can show me where I said "Ann Althouse is a liar," I agree to rename my son AC245 in your honor.

If you can't, you agree to grovel for a bit and proclaim my innate superiority over you.

I do, though, stand by my claim that Ann has misrepresented the evidence in her post about he WaPo piece to make it appear as though the documents she linked were the changes the WaPo referenced, when they clearly were not. I NEVER said she set out to do so, but the fact remains that she did misrepresent the evidence and attacked the WaPo piece on based on it.

Ann has now modified her initial post on the WaPo story. Apart from a quibble about whether she should have stated that the documents she relied on were two months out of date, I consider the matter closed until the full text comes out next week (hopefully).

lie: 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.3. an inaccurate or false statement.4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

misrepresentation:an intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct, or sometimes by nondisclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or causing another to rely on it detrimentally

If WaPo (or a similar news organization) writes on an issue about which there are public documents, but whose story relies on more recent, but not publicly released, versions of these documents, is it incumbent on the journalist to make it clear that the story is based on more than what has (yet) been made publicly available?

Largo,It is made perfectly clear in the story that these were changes made only in the last few days. While the final written documents are not publicly available, all the meetings and discussions and votes of the TBOE were open to the public -- including observers, bloggers, and reporters, which is where any journalist would get recently developing information for such a story.

And rcocean,Prove right now that anything in that WaPo story is "faked."

Greetings with random beach thoughts from an Island called Amelia. This was once the hot border that was as far south as the British Empire could draw its line against the Spanish Empire's forces in St Augustine. Several battles were fought to establish where that line would be during what the locals in Georgia called The War of Jenkins Ear. Too bad that the Obama Regime says that we can have no more borders, while the Israeli State is ordered to accept strict Arab approved pre 1967 borders or else Obama's Regime will abandon them. And the tribal borders in the Afghan mountains seem to be all that the US military is worth throwing away their lives for (Peleliu redux). How could anybody not decide to vote for an intelligent leader like Sarah Palin now that she alone is fighting a smart campaign to stop the Obama Regime's destruction of everything American. Is it because she does not have a Phd in nonsense from Harvard or Yale?

gatorguy keeps on keepin' on: "I never said it showed the entire debate over those months. It showed the entire debate on that day, from the motion to insert the new text, to the new text itself, to the comments of board members, to the vote on it. Nothing suggests that it had been edited down, which is what I believed you were claiming."

Nope, now you're backpedaling. "That day". Bullshit, that's NOT what you said, I called you on it twice, and now you're starting to spin.

This is your problem: "what I believe you were claiming".

You see, I'm using simple language to make a rather simple point and now you're trying to contort my plain and simple meaning. You can kind of get away with bullshit like that in a verbal conversation, but when it's written and easily referenced, you only reveal your ass.

"I'm still waiting for even one shred of evidence that Ann or you have to refute the WaPo story about the changes made last week."

It's all over the thread for fuck's sake. We're still waiting for you to produce something current.

"Of course, you won't do anything but dodge and weave again because you know that admitting the truth makes your previous posts look even more stupid."

Right dickweed, because repeated point by point rebuttals of your clear and present bullshit is dodging and weaving.

I'm done spelling things out for ya. Let's just consider one another idiots and call it there eh?

A whole lot of gloat there, Alpha, over not a whole lot of detail. You're being marginally more classy than the guy who mentions the woman's children by name in his confessional blogpost--but only marginally.